Iran
President Trump has legal and executive authority under US and International Law to do as he did.
It may not be popular, and might even be the wrong thing to do...but he is within his authority.
The terms of the Agreement (Treaty if you wish....) facilitate any individual Nation a part of the Agreement to cite issues and take action if it feels there was not a proper response to those concerns.
Yale Journal of International Law | Is the Trump Administration Bound by the Iran Deal?
It may not be popular, and might even be the wrong thing to do...but he is within his authority.
The terms of the Agreement (Treaty if you wish....) facilitate any individual Nation a part of the Agreement to cite issues and take action if it feels there was not a proper response to those concerns.
Yale Journal of International Law | Is the Trump Administration Bound by the Iran Deal?
US decided that it could do what it wanted and break its previous agreement. It then demand everybody else follow its steps or they would sanction any business doing trade with Iran and start and economic blockade. Now even its own friends realise that any agreement with US is breakable by them whenever a politician wants to do it. A Treaty means nothing because the next President can just walk away from it.
US doesn't need to worry about its enemies, they will always be there, its friends however are the ones who openly wonder what US is doing. UK will always be a lapdog but rest of EU see blocking of pipelines etc as nothing more than a move to corner the market.
Sunfish,
the Iranian vessel was on its was to Syria in breach of EU sanctions and was therefore boarded. But Im sure you knew that already didnt you? The UK have also been in talks and offered a peaceful way forward.
It appears however, that Iran has proceeded in a tit for tat game. Itll be interesting to see if the UK vessel was in breach of any international rules/regs. The company who own it claim it hasn’t.
the Iranian vessel was on its was to Syria in breach of EU sanctions and was therefore boarded. But Im sure you knew that already didnt you? The UK have also been in talks and offered a peaceful way forward.
It appears however, that Iran has proceeded in a tit for tat game. Itll be interesting to see if the UK vessel was in breach of any international rules/regs. The company who own it claim it hasn’t.
is iran a member of the EU? By your logic, I could prohibit you from drinking beer and then send a friend around to keep you out of the pub because you are in breach of my “sanctions”.
To put that another way, there is no legal relationship between iran and the EU. U.N. sanctions? Yes EU? no.
To put that another way, there is no legal relationship between iran and the EU. U.N. sanctions? Yes EU? no.
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Hampshire
Posts: 137
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The Grace I sailed through territorial waters of an EU member. I'm not sure the information is yet sufficiently clear on position of the 2 ships apparently taken by the Iranians to confirm whether they were in international waters or not.
The equivalent in your analogy might be not allowing people to drink beer in your own garden, but having no influence over what they do in a pub.
The equivalent in your analogy might be not allowing people to drink beer in your own garden, but having no influence over what they do in a pub.
Drust-etc - my thoughts exactly.
sunfish - the Iranian boat (sorry - ship) was in EU waters in defiance of EU sanctions when it was detained. Expecting to sail through unchallenged in defiance of said members states sanctions is somewhat dumb.
The uk flagged tanker on the other hand was in international waters apparently. It’ll be interesting to see what international rules/regs it had broken. No proof has been forthcoming just yet.
If we’re into analogies-
It’s like me telling you that you aren't allowed to walk through my property (or the property of my neighbours) en route to so and so’s party carrying beer, and then being annoyed when you do and then get detained. I then offer to release you, providing that you don't take your beer to so and so’s house.
You then threaten to detain a member of my family. You attempt to do so on a public highway (i,e not on your property) but get chased away by their older brother, and a few days later, you try the same again and succeed. Again-not on your property, with no proof forthcoming yet of any wrongdoing.
sunfish - the Iranian boat (sorry - ship) was in EU waters in defiance of EU sanctions when it was detained. Expecting to sail through unchallenged in defiance of said members states sanctions is somewhat dumb.
The uk flagged tanker on the other hand was in international waters apparently. It’ll be interesting to see what international rules/regs it had broken. No proof has been forthcoming just yet.
If we’re into analogies-
It’s like me telling you that you aren't allowed to walk through my property (or the property of my neighbours) en route to so and so’s party carrying beer, and then being annoyed when you do and then get detained. I then offer to release you, providing that you don't take your beer to so and so’s house.
You then threaten to detain a member of my family. You attempt to do so on a public highway (i,e not on your property) but get chased away by their older brother, and a few days later, you try the same again and succeed. Again-not on your property, with no proof forthcoming yet of any wrongdoing.
Join Date: Dec 2014
Location: scotland
Posts: 162
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Drust-etc - my thoughts exactly.
sunfish - the Iranian boat (sorry - ship) was in EU waters in defiance of EU sanctions when it was detained. Expecting to sail through unchallenged in defiance of said members states sanctions is somewhat dumb.
The uk flagged tanker on the other hand was in international waters apparently. It’ll be interesting to see what international rules/regs it had broken. No proof has been forthcoming just yet.
If we’re into analogies-
It’s like me telling you that you aren't allowed to walk through my property (or the property of my neighbours) en route to so and so’s party carrying beer, and then being annoyed when you do and then get detained. I then offer to release you, providing that you don't take your beer to so and so’s house.
You then threaten to detain a member of my family. You attempt to do so on a public highway (i,e not on your property) but get chased away by their older brother, and a few days later, you try the same again and succeed. Again-not on your property, with no proof forthcoming yet of any wrongdoing.
sunfish - the Iranian boat (sorry - ship) was in EU waters in defiance of EU sanctions when it was detained. Expecting to sail through unchallenged in defiance of said members states sanctions is somewhat dumb.
The uk flagged tanker on the other hand was in international waters apparently. It’ll be interesting to see what international rules/regs it had broken. No proof has been forthcoming just yet.
If we’re into analogies-
It’s like me telling you that you aren't allowed to walk through my property (or the property of my neighbours) en route to so and so’s party carrying beer, and then being annoyed when you do and then get detained. I then offer to release you, providing that you don't take your beer to so and so’s house.
You then threaten to detain a member of my family. You attempt to do so on a public highway (i,e not on your property) but get chased away by their older brother, and a few days later, you try the same again and succeed. Again-not on your property, with no proof forthcoming yet of any wrongdoing.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transit_passage
Transit passage is a concept of the Law of the Sea, which allows a vessel or aircraft the freedom of navigation or overflight solely for the purpose of continuous and expeditious transit of a strait between one part of the high seas or exclusive economic zone and another. The requirement of continuous and expeditious transit does not preclude passage through the strait for the purpose of entering, leaving or returning from a state bordering the strait, subject to the conditions of entry to that state.
This navigation rule is codified in Part III of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea.[1] Although not all countries have ratified the convention,[2] most countries, including the US,[3]
[4] accept the customary navigation rules as codified in the Convention. This navigation rule took on more importance with UNCLOS III as that convention confirmed the widening of territorial waters from three to twelve nautical miles, causing more straits not to have a navigation passage between the territorial waters of the coastal nations.[3]
Transit passage exists throughout the entire strait, not just the area overlapped by the territorial waters of the coastal nations. The ships and aircraft of all nations, including warships, auxiliaries, and military aircraft, enjoy the right of unimpeded transit passage in such straits and their approaches. Submarines are free to transit international straits submerged since that is their normal mode of operation.[3]Transit passage rights do not extend to any state's internal waters within a strait.[1]
The legal regime of transit passage exists for all straits used for international navigation where there is not a simple alternative route, and where there is no long-standing international convention governing the straits such as for the Danish Straits, the Turkish Straits, and the Strait of Magellan. The major international trade routes of the Strait of Gibraltar, Dover Strait, Strait of Hormuz, Bab-el-Mandeb and Strait of Malacca are covered by the transit passage provisions.[3]
If that doesn’t apply at Gibraltar then it doesn’t apply in hormuz. If britain can stop ships then so can iran.
Transit passage is a concept of the Law of the Sea, which allows a vessel or aircraft the freedom of navigation or overflight solely for the purpose of continuous and expeditious transit of a strait between one part of the high seas or exclusive economic zone and another. The requirement of continuous and expeditious transit does not preclude passage through the strait for the purpose of entering, leaving or returning from a state bordering the strait, subject to the conditions of entry to that state.
This navigation rule is codified in Part III of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea.[1] Although not all countries have ratified the convention,[2] most countries, including the US,[3]
[4] accept the customary navigation rules as codified in the Convention. This navigation rule took on more importance with UNCLOS III as that convention confirmed the widening of territorial waters from three to twelve nautical miles, causing more straits not to have a navigation passage between the territorial waters of the coastal nations.[3]
Transit passage exists throughout the entire strait, not just the area overlapped by the territorial waters of the coastal nations. The ships and aircraft of all nations, including warships, auxiliaries, and military aircraft, enjoy the right of unimpeded transit passage in such straits and their approaches. Submarines are free to transit international straits submerged since that is their normal mode of operation.[3]Transit passage rights do not extend to any state's internal waters within a strait.[1]
The legal regime of transit passage exists for all straits used for international navigation where there is not a simple alternative route, and where there is no long-standing international convention governing the straits such as for the Danish Straits, the Turkish Straits, and the Strait of Magellan. The major international trade routes of the Strait of Gibraltar, Dover Strait, Strait of Hormuz, Bab-el-Mandeb and Strait of Malacca are covered by the transit passage provisions.[3]
If that doesn’t apply at Gibraltar then it doesn’t apply in hormuz. If britain can stop ships then so can iran.
Did anyone think this through?
As in - if we arrest /detain a tanker at Gibraltar how many UK ships re in the Gulf and how will we protect them? Because it's either criminal lack of foresight or an attempt to make the situation in the Gulf worse................
Which is weird as the UK is trying to save the N deal but at the same time has issues with that lady in jail and refuses to settle the bill for the tanks that is till outstanding... certainly NOT a joined-up policy I'm afraid
As in - if we arrest /detain a tanker at Gibraltar how many UK ships re in the Gulf and how will we protect them? Because it's either criminal lack of foresight or an attempt to make the situation in the Gulf worse................
Which is weird as the UK is trying to save the N deal but at the same time has issues with that lady in jail and refuses to settle the bill for the tanks that is till outstanding... certainly NOT a joined-up policy I'm afraid
If that doesn’t apply at Gibraltar then it doesn’t apply in hormuz. If britain can stop ships then so can iran.
The correct and legal methods are with diplomatic protests and International Courts....not piracy!
The Captain and senior Officers of the Tanker seized by the UK were given a Court appearance and bonded....and released.
The Court extended the period the Tanker could be held pending the "defendant" to prove its cargo was headed to legitimate buyers.
Compare that to the Iranian actions.
Also take note that the Official News outlet for the Iranian Regime directly contradicted the semi-official PARS version of the reasons behind the seizure.
The Iranians cannot get on the same sheet of music when it comes to the reasons they are seizing multiple Tankers....and have not afforded the crews that are being held captive any sort of legal proceeding .
Face it....the Iranians are walking over their own Willy by doing what they are and how they are going about it.
Join Date: Dec 2014
Location: scotland
Posts: 162
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Conservative Tom Tugendhat,( Neville Chamberlain) chairman of the Commons foreign affairs(and appeasement) committee, said if the report is correct, Britain should rule out the use of force in response. “That’s an important Iranian military port and I think any military options will therefore be extremely unwise,” he told BBC Radio 4
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: E.Wash State
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
US made a binding agreement along with other parties with Iran. It decided to break it and walk away with zero proof even though body monitoring said it was clear that Iran was keeping to the agreement. Israel demanded US break the agreement and it did. Why is US allowing a foreign govt interfere ? US then imposed sanctions and demanded others do so as well.
It is true that after reimposing sanctions, the US told others "you choose, us or them". Sorry you don't like that, but you still have a choice.
What military action can the UK carry out that would have a "positive" effect on this whole situation and not. harm its own interests?
There just isn't the Tools in the Kit Bag due to the down sizing of the UK Military these days for them unilaterally to influence such a campaign.
It would require a multi-national response...UK/US perhaps....but certainly not the Israeli's.
The Israeli's understand they have to act independently or see an anti-Iran Arab/Western powers coalition fall apart.
Racedo.....exactly where do you come up with this notion that the Agreement is "binding" on any signatory to the Agreement?
The "Agreement" has options for every signatory to raise issues and exercise options.....that is exactly what the United States Government did.
Put up your evidence to prove the United States violated the wording of the "Agreement".
Even Obama called the "Agreement" a political agreement and did not pursue Congressional approval as a "Treaty".
President Trump carried that forward upon taking office.
http://iranprimer.usip.org/blog/2017...g-nuclear-deal
There just isn't the Tools in the Kit Bag due to the down sizing of the UK Military these days for them unilaterally to influence such a campaign.
It would require a multi-national response...UK/US perhaps....but certainly not the Israeli's.
The Israeli's understand they have to act independently or see an anti-Iran Arab/Western powers coalition fall apart.
Racedo.....exactly where do you come up with this notion that the Agreement is "binding" on any signatory to the Agreement?
The "Agreement" has options for every signatory to raise issues and exercise options.....that is exactly what the United States Government did.
Put up your evidence to prove the United States violated the wording of the "Agreement".
Even Obama called the "Agreement" a political agreement and did not pursue Congressional approval as a "Treaty".
President Trump carried that forward upon taking office.
http://iranprimer.usip.org/blog/2017...g-nuclear-deal
Last edited by SASless; 20th Jul 2019 at 15:17.
If Britain had not invested so much money in two large aircraft carriers, there would have been more money available for more destroyers and frigates. Does Britain really need these two huge assets? It seems clear that a fleet of many more smaller vessels would be much more useful - not only in places like The Gulf, but also around the coast of Britain to control immigration, and perhaps fishing rights after Brexit.
The Royal Navy is seriously short of ships. Had every British vessel been escorted through the Straits of Hormuz after the oil tanker carrying Iranian oil was stopped and taken to Gibralter, this would not have happened. You don't need too much imagination to see that this tit-for-tat escalation would soon start. But we are now almost impotent.
The Royal Navy is seriously short of ships. Had every British vessel been escorted through the Straits of Hormuz after the oil tanker carrying Iranian oil was stopped and taken to Gibralter, this would not have happened. You don't need too much imagination to see that this tit-for-tat escalation would soon start. But we are now almost impotent.
"The Captain and senior Officers of the Tanker seized by the UK were given a Court appearance and bonded....and released."
Nothing to stop the Iranians from doing the same - bu the crew may want to stay on the vessel under "house arrest"
I'm interested in what the Iranians say - about where the tanker was - but right now it does look like tit-for-tat. Which is clearly illegal under international law.............. but I suspect they feel International Law hasn't done much for Iran over the years.
Nothing to stop the Iranians from doing the same - bu the crew may want to stay on the vessel under "house arrest"
I'm interested in what the Iranians say - about where the tanker was - but right now it does look like tit-for-tat. Which is clearly illegal under international law.............. but I suspect they feel International Law hasn't done much for Iran over the years.
Sasless: ‘
How do you know the Iranians have not done exactly the same thing? Just asking.....
The Captain and senior Officers of the Tanker seized by the UK were given a Court appearance and bonded....and released.
The Court extended the period the Tanker could be held pending the "defendant" to prove its cargo was headed to legitimate buyers.
Compare that to the Iranian actions.
The Court extended the period the Tanker could be held pending the "defendant" to prove its cargo was headed to legitimate buyers.
Compare that to the Iranian actions.
Nothing to stop the Iranians from doing the same....
If the Iranians were playing by the Rules they would have preferred charges against the Captain and perhaps the senior members of the crew....and made all those proceeding public wouldn't they?
They have not....and the news media (international media) are not having much access to the crews are they?